you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

And then a wealthy slumlord does the math and finds out it's cheaper to pay people to sabotage the website than to lose tenants due to reviews.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You know somehow wikipedia maintains it's integrity pretty well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Wikipedia has two significant advantages:

    1. The content is objective, and sources should be cited.
    2. Individual editors are volunteers with actual interest in their topics.

    The former makes for a clear and low-effort bar for determining if a contribution is bad. If it's not cited, or it's biased, revert and move on. Figuring out if a user-written review is paid for, factually false, or exaggerated is a lot harder.

    As for the latter... aside from doing it out of spite or as a favor to landlord friends, I have a hard time imagining that many people would volunteer their time moderating the review page about the apartment they rented 14 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Well, I don't think the content is objective. There are many politically contentious articles and they have systems, disclaimers, and discussions to try to deal with it.

    I think the moderators would be locals looking over an entire neighborhood, sort of like our Lemmy mods.

  • source
  • parent